Letters: ruling on immigration

I will comment on just one of the many issues that Ruben Navarrette (“Not the last word on immigration,” Opinion, June 27) has failed to correctly identify.

There is NO right to be “left alone” either stated or implied in [the Fourth] Amendment. It is a limitation on government search and seizures, not a guarantee of anything for the individual. To correctly understand the Bill of Rights it is important to remember that all of the amendments pertain to limitations on government.

Racial profiling is illegal when it comes to immigration law. In order for anyone to be required to prove they are here legally they must have been stopped for some other reason.

The real devastation we face comes from the federal government when ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] leadership says it will not accept illegals detained under Arizona law. Ruben and his pals are also given a phone line so they may whine and complain. This is a direct attack on the ideal of law and order. – Jim Reid, Pacific Beach

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

Ruben Navarrette Jr.’s editorial on the recent Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 is full of holes and calls the section that was upheld “the most repugnant part of the law.”

What Mr. Navarrette failed to mention in his comments, after pointing out that even conservative [Chief] Justice Roberts ruled in overturning three parts of the bill, is that the upheld section received an 8-to-0 decision (Justice Kagan recused herself). Unless I’m missing something, that includes the typically liberal-leaning justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. There are not many unanimous decisions that come from the Supreme Court, yet the most “repugnant part” was one they could all agree upon. – Gene Malone, Coronado

We won’t be having this discussion if the Obama administration really did its job and enforced ALL our immigration laws, not pick and choose which ones they want to enforce and how much they want to enforce them, or if the pro-illegal-immigration advocates stopped interfering with the implementation of those laws and accept the fact that this country has every right to control its borders and expel ALL of those who are here breaking our laws.

If the Obama administration does its job and makes national E-Verify mandatory and cuts all the incentives that brings the illegals here, including the end of automatic citizenship to the children of illegals and visitors, the illegals will go home and we won’t have what Navarrette calls a burden, to have to show proof of legal status when asked.

To me, as a Hispanic, it has never been a burden to comply and show the papers. Never have I felt discriminated or singled out, because they ask me, because I do understand that until illegal immigration is under control in America and our borders are secured, we all have to do our part.

Obama’s claims of mass deportations that you are giving him credit for is not a valid one, if you consider that our border continues to be a revolving door – gone today and back tomorrow. This administration knows this and it thinks it can fool all of us with its claims.

Regardless of whether our politicians want illegals to please the chamber of commerce and big business, we, the American people, are fed up with politics as usual and demand enforcement of ALL OUR LAWS, regardless of the lack of acceptance from special interests and all of those who want us to look the other way and let our laws be ignored. – Ana Zuniga-Maus, San Diego

In displaying quotes from “Local voices on the immigration ruling” (June 26), compiler Elizabeth Aguilera selected a vast disproportionate amount of anti-Arizona law (SB 1070) advocates compared to people who support it. Why not be a little more balanced? If you’re going to consistently quote pseudo-legitimate groups like “El Grupo” and “American Friends Service Committee,” then it’s only fair to hear from the other end of the spectrum with groups like the immigrant-restrictionists FAIR.

In addition, the correct term is “illegal aliens,” not “undocumented immigrants.” This is the official term the government uses. Who are you to decide that it is no longer a “politically correct” term? Your paper’s constant bias toward illegal-alien amnesty is getting tiresome. – Patrick Bunch, North Park

While I respect the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona 2010 immigration law ("Parts of immigration law rejected," June 26), I disagree with it, especially the centerpiece “show me your papers,” the provision, generally speaking, that requires law enforcement officers to determine immigration status or suspected as such.

So tell me, who would you suspect? A light-skinned person or a person who might be of darker skin? We had no say or what color we are born into.

It’s scary, because it might lead to racial profiling, and we all know where that could take us. – Cesar Lopez, Chula Vista